20 Amendments of Mara BIZZOTTO related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph - 1 A (new)
Paragraph - 1 A (new)
A. given that, in the main study forming the basis of the Commission’s evaluation of TTIP, namely the study conducted by CEPR: a) the benefits proposed as being unquestionable and decisive were actually coincidental and insignificant: for example, a 0.48% increase in European GDP over 13 years; b) the potential disadvantages were not quantified, since the analysis methods used were based on anachronistic, blind faith in the self-balancing capability of the market; c) the positive effect of TTIP on real employment, a crucial evaluation factor in this time of economic crisis, was not examined in sufficient depth;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 B (new)
Paragraph -1 B (new)
B. given that other studies which were not considered by the Commission used different methodologies (such as the Global Policy Model of the UN) to obtain markedly less optimistic results for the EU: including, net employment income losses, job losses and a fall in the proportion of employment income with regard to total income;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 C (new)
Paragraph -1 C (new)
C. given that the study commissioned by the ITRE committee [1] reveals, amongst other things, that: a) the effect of TTIP on various sectors of the European manufacturing industry, such as steel working and electrical machinery, will likely be a decrease in exports, with negative impacts on employment; b) the Commission’s view on employment is extremely simplified, as it irrationally assumes total flexibility in the movement of labour;] [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2015/536316/IPOL_STU(201 5)536316_EN.pdf
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Finds regrettableNotes the fact that no transport-related issues were included in the Commission’s negotiating mandate for the TTIP;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i) to ensure that TTIP will make a significantreal and tangible positive contribution to creating more and better jobs and set ambitious global trade standards for sustainable development and labour;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the degree of divergence between the regulatory systems of the EU and the US is very wide in key areas for the protection of health and the environment, including food safety, the use of drugs in intensive livestock feeding (e.g. in the rabbit–farming sector) and consumer information, owing to different legal and political cultures (epitomised by the controversy over the precautionary principle);
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to maintain the objective of including a specific energy chapter in the TTIP which could significantly increase the EU’s energy securitydrop the disastrous TTIP project, which the peoples of Europe do not want because they sense that it could threaten their vital interests;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates the great importance of the transatlantic transport sector for trade as well as economic growth and jobs; reiterates its call for the negotiations to address in a meaningful way and in the spirit of reciprocity all relevant issues, taking into account existing EU standards;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Requests that the Commission ensureshould not adopt a policy of free trade with respect to fuels, including LNG and crude oil;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to work on transatlantic harmonisation ofmaintain national and, under the principle of subsidiarity, European standards and regulations that define the principles of public support for different energy sources; calls on the Commission not to give way to US demands;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers it misleading on the partimproper of the Commission to try to appease public concerns about the TTIP by stating that existing standards will not be lowered, as this disregards the fact that differences in such standards can already be observed and pertain to the operating principles of both markets, and that many standards have yet to be set in the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH) or by the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning);
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points to the huge differentials between the USA and the EU in energy prices but also in per capita CO2 emissions; calls on the Commission, therefore, to provide energy-intensive sectors in the EU, including the chemicals industry, with appropriate measures maintaining current tariff rates over the longest possible period after the entry into force of the TTIPif the TTIP comes into force; points out that the USA, concerned primarily with the relentless pursuit of its own interests, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point viii
Paragraph 1 – point viii
viii) to guarantee that agreement on any dispute-settlement mechanism must take into account the results of the public consultation on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), must be fully transparent andISDS is removed from the agreement, as it is not democratically accountable and must not, therefore, hinders legislators from passing laws in the area of employment policy;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is very concerned that the objective of regulatory convergence, including in particular the creation of a Regulatory Cooperation Council, will lead to anot only lead to economic losses for European producers, but also the lowering of future EU standards in key areas for the protection of human health, food safety and the environment in light of the significant differences as compared with the US;
Amendment 138 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point x
Paragraph 1 – point x
x) to ensure that statistical projections on job losses/gains, and on sectors, affected are constantly updated so that timely intervention can be undertaken by the CommissionMember States to support affected sectors, regions or Member States.
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Requests that the Commission facilitate more active participation of EU Member State firms in US public procurement as this can contribute to stimulating private- sector innovation and to the emergence of new, high-growth innovative companies and sectors; points out that the United States is determined to protect its public procurement markets, of which only 30% are currently open to foreign companies (on account of the 1933 Buy American Act), compared with 95% of European public procurement markets;
Amendment 156 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point x a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point x a (new)
(x a) to adopt preventive measures protecting those sectors threatened by a fall in employment as a consequence of TTIP
Amendment 171 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reminds the Commission, while welcomingremaining doubtful about the potential benefits of regulatory alignment and mutual recognition, including the establishment of common principles in standards and technical specifications in the area of ICT, about the importance of maintaining high levels of safety and security, for both producers and consumers;
Amendment 204 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Urges the Commission, even though it has not been elected, to listen to the people it claims to serve, rather than the multinationals to whose demands it continues to bow;
Amendment 285 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is deeply concerned about the lack of transparency in the negotiations, and urges the Commission to give all Members of the European Parliament access to the negotiation texts, in particular the consolidated ones.